- #1
QuendeltonPG
- 6
- 0
In the introduction to their book 'The Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour' von Neumann and Morgenstern consider the arguments against the use of mathematics in economics. One of the reasons they believe that previous applications of mathematics to economics had been unsuccessful was that;
"empirical background of economic science is incomparably smaller than that commanded in physics at the time of the mathematization of that subject was achieved. ... it was backed by several millenia of systematic, scientific, astronomical observation, culminating in an observer or unparalleled calibre, Tycho de Brahe. Nothing of this sort has occurred in economic science. It would have been absurd in physics to expect Kepler and Newton without Tycho,- and there is no reason to hope for an easier development in economics."
The question I would like to put to you all is; In the years since the Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour was publish what successes, if any, do you feel the field of economics has had? Particularly on the level of empirical work at the macro and micro level?
"empirical background of economic science is incomparably smaller than that commanded in physics at the time of the mathematization of that subject was achieved. ... it was backed by several millenia of systematic, scientific, astronomical observation, culminating in an observer or unparalleled calibre, Tycho de Brahe. Nothing of this sort has occurred in economic science. It would have been absurd in physics to expect Kepler and Newton without Tycho,- and there is no reason to hope for an easier development in economics."
The question I would like to put to you all is; In the years since the Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour was publish what successes, if any, do you feel the field of economics has had? Particularly on the level of empirical work at the macro and micro level?